Thursday, January 10, 2013

No, Hitler Did Not Ban Guns - And Neither Did Mussolini, Castro, Stalin or Pol Pot...

1/17 - UPDATE: As the gun nut counter arguments have become repetitive, not to mention weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, I'm not going to answer individual gun nut stupid arguments anymore. Instead, at the bottom of this post you'll find a synopsis of the top stupid arguments in no particular order, and my rebuttals. If you're a gun nut and you don't see your favorite stupid argument here, by all means, regale us with your keen insight.

Gun nuts take it as a matter of faith that terrible dictators were only able to rise to power after they had disarmed their own people. This is quite simply not true. In the most commonly cited examples - Hitler, Mussolini, Stain, Pol Pot and Castro - gun restrictions played absolutely no role in gaining or maintaining power.

The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.

PP does point out that the Nazis did prohibit Jews from owning guns, among many other prohibitions. But the idea that a small minority with a few weapons could have stood up to the German war machine is risible...

Under their reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things. And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen). But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts.

Jews from Prague's ghetto on their way to the trains

Taking it a logical step further, Jews in Prague still had guns. Jews in Warsaw and Kracow had guns. Jews in Paris had guns. Fat lot of good it did them. The claim that if only Jews in Germany had been armed, the Holocaust would never have happened is risibly absurd.

The gun nut appeal to Godwin, aka going Hitler, isn't the only oft repeated lie. "Castro banned guns in Cuba," is popular, as well. This is also untrue. Cuba has restrictions on long guns, but any citizen can own a hand gun. Not to mention, the revolution didn't succeed because Castro took guns from Cubans. It succeeded in part because he gave guns to Cubans.

"Mussolini banned guns!" No, he didn't. Il Duce used propaganda and political manipulation to gain and hold power. While he did speak publicly in favor of gun control, he did not ban guns in Italy. What he did do to consolidate power was introduce the Acerbo Law, which changed the way elections were run in Italy to greatly favor the Fascists. Italy under Fascism was a police state, but not because guns were banned.

"Stalin banned guns!" Nope. He had nothing to do with Russia's strict gun control laws, enacted as Stalin was coming to power. At no time in the revolutionary period were guns banned in Russia, nor were guns - or the lack thereof - a factor in Stalin's rise or his grip on power.

Sadly, reality doesn't seem to matter. Those who believe these myths will continue to believe, facts be damned. But that doesn't mean the truth should be subverted, and the truth is these gun nut claims are not accurate, at best.

Here's the top gun nut arguments so far, with my rebuttals...

1. Read the headline, gun nuts. THAT'S my point.

Not one of you has been able to refute any of my facts. Comically, many of these nuts believe it's up to me to prove the facts true. Not surprising Very few gun nuts were on the debate team or know the first bleeping thing about forensics. FYI, ignorant gun nuts, in any debate, if you believe your adversary's statements to be in error, it is incumbent upon YOU to refute them authoritatively. And no, "Nuh uh," or, "Is not," do not refutations make, duh.

2. "Obama (Congress, etc.) has armed guards!"

You are not the president of the United States. You're just a gun nut with delusions of adequacy. How bleeping stupid must one be before one is unable to understand that the most powerful office in the world merits extra protection, especially as more than a few presidents have been SHOT? Is fork in the face stupid sufficient or must one be super dense, black hole, singularity-type stupid?

3. "In Australia (or England, Sweden, insert your favorite country to hate here) crime went UP after guns were banned!"

This one is double dumb. First off, it's simply not true, which is why not one of these nuts can provide any kind of citation to any such thing. Second, none of the favorite gun nut target countries banned guns.

4. "Chicago! (or NYC, LA, Detroit, etc.)

Gun nuts are too ignorant to know bringing up Chicago disproves their own argument. The fact is Chicago banned hand guns in 1982. Beginning in 1983 and continuing for 28 years, the murder rate trended consistently down, falling every year except 2.

In 2010 the Supreme Court overturned Chicago's ban. Once again cheap hand guns were easy to come by. Guess what happened? The murder rate skyrocketed.

As to comparing large states with large urban areas to empty rural states, what, are you gun nuts really THAT bleeping stupid?

5. "Mexico has strict gun laws and it's still flooded with drug gangs using illegal guns!"

Good point! Yes, Mexico is suffering terrible problems at the hand of drug cartels. Drug cartels that supply the American market using guns they bought legally in Texas, then smuggled into Mexico. IOW, our taste for drugs and our gun culture are in large part responsible for Mexico's troubles.

6. "Cars kill more people than guns!"

They do, which is why we require drivers to be licensed, which requires passing proficiency tests every few years. We require all vehicles to be registered with the state and pass inspections at regular intervals. We require liability insurance. We tax all vehicle sales, retail and private. By all means, yes, let's treat guns just like we treat cars.

7. "Hitler disarmed the Jews. If the Jews had guns, there would have been no holocaust!"

Yes, Hitler disarmed German Jews in 1938, long after the Nazis had consolidated total power and long after they had subjugated German Jews, taking not just their guns, but their citizenship, businesses, livelihoods homes, possessions...

Not to mention, Jews in Warsaw, Paris, Prague, etc., were not banned from owning guns until after Hitler had conquered their nations. Six million died. Fat lot of good their guns did them against the Nazi war machine.

8. "Criminals don't obey the law, so gun laws won't work!"

Following this toy train of logic to its inevitable flaming wreck, because some people will break the law, we shouldn't have any laws at all.

9. "You can't stop every tragedy!"

No, you can't, but it's stupid to argue that since we can't stop all tragedies we shouldn't try to stop any. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

10. "Banning weapons won't work!"

Learn to read. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Stop listening to those voices in your head.

11. "Israel and Switzerland have lots of guns and low crime rates!"

Both Israel and Switzerland have extremely strict gun laws, duh. Thanks ever so much for proving my point that gun control, does, indeed, reduce violent crime.

12. "The assault weapons ban didn't work!"

Nonsense. The rate of mass shooting during the ban was MUCH lower than before or after.

334 comments:

I cannot say I disagree with anything you are saying here. Obviously you wrote this piece prior to today's newest attack. People will need to rally, a lot of people to convince Congress they don't care about the NRA, CIA, FBI, NSA, NBA...etc.I will be following you from here on. Please return the act by following mine: http://lifeonadiagonal.blogspot.com/

Your obviously confused, the NBA and CIA don't promote the second ammendment, also people do support the NRA so their second ammendment rights are secured, I am one of them and since Sandy Hook they have 100,000 new members as of today and over 4 million in all, so nearly the size of Ireland Lol. But why do you guys dodge the facts, that more guns for the most part equals less crime, that these shooting are happening in gun free zones? That senators that want you and me disarmed have body guards at hand 24/7? Why ignore the vast ammount of quotes by the founders that support gun rights? Why ignore the fact that the government even with our gun laws is much more powerful than the founders imagined the central government to be? Why ignore that deaths by fists are twice as much as long rifles in 2011? Why ignore that handguns are the next ban, and bolt action after that? Why do you think the government won't commit genocide one day if you cannot protect yourself? Do you think the UNited States government is more special in some way? And what way would that be as it surely isnt the Constitution cause if it was we wouldnt be having this conversation on banning guns now would we?

Yet it's funny how you try and nit pick at my post when obviously I make some good points and you know it and you also must know that our public officials have bodyguards, Nixon even gave bodyguards to Ted Kennedy so you might wanna do some research, perhaps not all but many. I have a cousin who use to be a body guard for a state representative so I now a little about it and I myself am a veteran who has looked into similar work. But keep ignoring facts and continue to push your agenda.

Haha he is right http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/10/video-nra-adds-100000-paid-memberships-in-18-days/ man liberty is beautiful, it seems the more the anti gunners push the more liberty we get, when teachers are armed nation wide I cannot wait to see them smoking these amateur murderers to hell, you liberals need to get with the program and get a piece of this liberty, you might lead happier lives hahahhahahaha

Well Obama has body guards and he says less guns make us more safe, so why does he need body guards? So whatever you want to say about Senators your logic fails because the point that the dude was making was that public officials are guarded yet don't want us armed, that is pathetic.

The truth is that states with the most restrictive gun law have the lowest rate of gun related crime and that is a fact. As for Senators I have been in a good many public meeting with Senators without a body guard in sight. The NRA is a joke. 4 million NRA members and there are over 296 million people in America who are not member of the NRA . So I guess the majority rules as it should in this nation. Every time the gun extremist open there mouth I wonder why the sane gun owner put up with them. Time for the sane one to speak up and speak up loud!!!!!

I realize that facts are of small value here, but consider this: the place most like America that isn't America is Australia (honestly, it's more American than even Canada). Australia has severe gun restrictions, implemented in response to a brutal mass shooting twenty years ago. Since then, Australia has had no mass shootings.

I would say there's a lesson in here somewhere, but of course Australia also has national public health care which is every bit as good as American health care, covers everyone, and also costs the country half as much; and yet that elementary fact does not seem to penetrate, either.

I used to think all the gun nuts should live a year in Somalia, so they could get what they want; now I think they should all live a year in Australia, so they can see what they (and everyone) deserve.

Australia's violent crime has went through the roof MCPLANCK, look it up, and gun crime has went up. Why is it that all gun control advocate can understand that. And for the guy abpve saying that the states with the most restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime is a flat out lie, Illinois, New York and California are at the top of the list with crime and gun free zones is where every massacre happens, you can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

Well, you got one thing right, albeit a well know trope. Speaking of facts...

"Australia's violent crime has went through the roof" Er, no. Not even close. That's simply not true.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

"Illinois, New York and California are at the top of the list with crime"

Once again, that's total bullshit. Where do you get this absurd nonsense? Here, try a little REALITY. You know, for a change of pace...

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

BTW, genius, brillyent strategery bringing up Illinois! As far as you know.

In the wake of a wave of gun murders, in 1982 Chicago banned hand guns. The murder rate went down, and continued to trend downward for 28 years, until 2010. In 2010 the Roberts court ruled the Chicago ban unconstitutional. Cheap hand guns were once again readily available. Guess what happened?

After 28 years of the murder rate going down every year, with the exception of only 2 years, the murder rate skyrocketed with virtually all of the change coming from GUN MURDERS.

Thanks for making my point so irrefutably! I know it's not what you intended, but surely you're used to that by now.

Chicago's crime rate has always been terrible as is the rate in all inter-cities as they all have strict gun laws, hence why some states that actually unhold the second amendment have less crime except for the inner city. Here you go take a look http://tpnn.com/ed-schultz-gun-laws-apparently-dont-exist-in-chicago/, http://www.bet.com/news/health/2012/02/01/chicago-has-highest-murder-rate-in-the-u-s.html,

IDK where this guy got his statistics from but Oakland, Stockton, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago and other gun controlled cities in these states have staggering gun crime it's just a fact, here is another liberal city with terrible gun control http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/10/18/detroit-tops-the-2012-list-of-americas-most-dangerous-cities/

I wonder why the District of Columbia has 24.2 murders per 1,000 people as it has the strictest gun laws http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf also look at your very sources on gun control on the District of Columbia. Also Memphis is full of crime but Tennessee is very peaceful, places like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Jacksonville push those states crime rate up yet they do not represent the state since those are cun controlled area and hence more crime amd criminals for the most part use "hood guns" unless of course they are gonna kill themselves like the Sandy Hook nut job.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

Many people have rebutted you, you just ignore it. The fact is that the German weapons act of 1938 tightened gun laws in Germany for Jews, which is the population the Nazis were against we all know what happened to them. Also, many have stated that the Russian Revolution happened becasue people had access to guns and no Revolution was since possible because of strict gun laws, and the people of Russia has suffered immensely at the hands of their centralized government who have taken their god given rights away, shame on you for twisting things to fit your agenda.

The fact is you're ass backwards wrong. The weapons act of 1938 LOOSENED gun regulations in Germany, completely doing away with regulations of long guns, powder and ammunition. In any event, "regulate" is not synonymous with "ban," and the FACT, which no one can refute, is Hitler did not ban guns, period, EOS, move the bleep on.

He issued major gun control measures, and Jews were specifically targeted and we all know what happened there I hope, it loosened gun regulations on Germans, nice dodge though. Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Oh but take a look at this also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXasqpuvZxA

This stuff really isn't that hard of a concept though, good luck with your thinking.

No, he did not, or you'd be able to CITE these restrictions. In fact he LOOSENED many of the strict restrictions left over from the Weimar epublic.

"and Jews were specifically targeted..."

They were, and in many ways. By 1938, when Jews were banned from manufacturing or trading in guns, German Jews had already lost virtually all of the rights of German citizenship. The 1938 restrictions 1, did not take guns from Jews and 2, was AFTER THE FACT. Ergo, only an idiot would conclude the taking of guns to be the reason the Nazis were able to subjugate the Jews.

No one said that was the only reason but they couldn't buy guns or ammo and how many do you think stockpiled? Also you could have your gun taken for the slightest detail read here if you wish but i know your closed minded http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Gateway-Tyranny-Weapons/dp/0964230410/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357883099&sr=1-4&keywords=german+gun+laws Germans also were only allowed handguns and yes he had major gun control measures against Jews, you even admitted that a few sentances later lol

Lol, avoiding the truth doesn't make you right, funny how you missed the rest so i will type it again No one said that was the only reason but they couldn't buy guns or ammo and how many do you think stockpiled? Also you could have your gun taken for the slightest detail read here if you wish but i know your closed minded http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Gateway-Tyranny-Weapons/dp/0964230410/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357883099&sr=1-4&keywords=german+gun+laws Germans also were only allowed handguns and yes he had major gun control measures against Jews, you even admitted that a few sentances later lol

It is not propaganda that your job, the fact is everyone that has been killed by massive genocides have had their gun taken at some time, if they have ever had guns, I am for letting people own guns to protect themselves and making it known through the media that citizens should own firearms and be prepared to protect their families from tyranny and criminals. You want to make people defenseless by limiting them to handguns and bolt actions, at least for now then it will be bow and arrows and knives.

Wow, war on the NRA, with what? The NRA has been one of the reasons why crime has decreased in the last 40 years in America, and gun free zones are the places where these mass shootings are happening, so why blame guns or the NRA? The "gun nits" and the NRA want Gun FREE zones eliminated, which statistically will cause less crime, wake up and stop buying into the propaganda of the mainstream media, gun control isn't about guns, but control.

So you wanna stop violence by declaring war? Lol liberal logic 101 right there. Look the NRA hasn't killed anyone and saying that the NRA has blood on it's hands is just about the dumbest statement ever yet it's repeated constantly by the liberal media. The NRA is responsible for gun violence going down during the last few decades as more guns equals less crime in America when you look at the data used by the FBI and others. But anyway what's your plan genius? Do you want to ban semi autos? Handguns? Both? Because there was more murders by hands and feet than by rifles in 2011, do you wanna ban hands and feet too lol....moron

This information is misguided, you could only own a handgun in Germany and Jews had no gun rights, hence all the Jews were massacred. And yes the red revolution they had guns, hence why it succeeded, you have to be real naive to buy into this, it isn't all false but it twists things. Look at some of these other peoples citations they give or book references and you will see that this post is a twist of history. But even how twisted this post is even he says Hitler has gun control so if someone said "Hitler did it" it wouldn't be of an opposite viewpoint of this post obviously lol, did you even read it, he even says the Jews were denied gun rights and that Germans were restricted to firearms.

The article doesn't say there was no gun control in 1930s Germany. It states that Hitler did not impose gun control to establish power.

From Wikipedia : In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

No one is saying that he wasn't elected in 1933 as Chancellor, but this article is twisting the fact that Germany did in fact have tight gun control, with Jews not owning any weapons, and we all know what happened to German Jews. Also it doesnt matter if Nazi Germany wasn't reponsible for all the gun control meseaures, what matters is Hitlers ability to see that they worked for him to control Germany and he realized if he tightened them on Jews it would make his job that much easier. We nearly lost our Revolution with Great Britian early on but if we did I dont think anyone would have said we shouldnt of had guns and maybe we would have done better, the fact is the Jews in Germany didn't have a fighting chance, and the second ammendment is suppose to give Americans that fighting chance, this is one of the reasons tyranny is harder to arise in America than Europe.

Whether he had to establish gun control or not is not the point, the point is is that it did help him have more power, specifically over Jews, it makes no difference who enacted the law, the fact still remains that Germany had strict gun laws and their was genocide in Germany, simple concept really. The same goes for all the other countries this clown mentions in his post here.

"The article doesn't say there was no gun control in 1930s Germany. It states that Hitler did not impose gun control to establish power."

Precisely. Thank you.

My point isn't that conquerors don't confiscate weapons. Of course they do. My point is the oft repeated canard of gun nuts that Hitler banned guns and rose to power as a result, is a LIE. It never happened. If one has to base one's arguments on demonstrably untrue assertions, one has a lousy argument.

No one argues Hitler took guns, people argue gun control (whether by Nazi Germany, or pre Nazi Germany, or by the Soviet Union or anyone else)makes these genocides come about easier as the people can't fend for themselves.

Only people incapable of understanding cause and effect or before as opposed to after. Gun restrictions had precisely nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler's rise to power, subjugation of the Jews or conquest of Europe.

No one said it did, however, he did consfiscate guns from jews and germans alike who he saw as enemies of the state or those without reason to have guns, that cant happen in america lawfully because we have the second ammendment yet that happened in Germany, also he restricted jews from purchasing arms and ammo. THis made the slaughter easier, yet not imposible if it didn't happen but I belive people have a fighting chance.

He is right on, only 1,236 survived because of gun control obviously are you that dumb John? If there was more guns there would obviously be more cases like this, he just turned your whole post on it's head. Not everywhere where gun control is there is genocide but everywhere where genocide is there is gun control.

for one, most of us don't want to BAN guns. We want reasonable controls so they are WELL REGULATED. Like background checks at gun shows and for private sales You might recognize the words WELL REGULATED, They are at the beginning of the 2nd amendment that most you of cling to and misinterpret more than the Bible

Yes a well regulated Militia, but the right to bear arms shall not be infringed smart guy, so stop infringing. Also, most dont want to ban guns at all, so that is BS, it's funny how you don't attack the facts that you say are misguided though.

Good, no ban, but you are still cherry picking the evidence by saying that just cause Hitler didnt impose strict gun control on everyone then he didnt enact tough gun laws, which is false he enacted tough ones on the jews and germany had strict gun laws compared to the United States so you fail. Alos, Stalin enacted gun control very tightly look here http://www.amazon.com/Death-Gun-Control-Victim-Disarmament/dp/0964230461/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Once again, Hitler LOOSENED exiting Weimar regulations and Stalin DID NOT institute a gun ban. The 1929 Russian gun laws were put in place before Stalin rose to power, not after. And citing lying gun nut propagandists does not an authoritative reference make.

Aaron Zelman is not a liar, you are a twister of the facts, Hitler loosened them on his allies, not Jews, they were tightened on them, in the same way elites like feinstein have concealed permits and Obama tightens his security. Again it doesn't matter who puts the law in place once its there terrible things may occur, yet stalin restricted guns on many of the nations he occupied like Germany, and Poland

Aaron Zelman is not a liar, you are a twister of the facts, Hitler loosened them on his allies, not Jews, they were tightened on them, in the same way elites like feinstein have concealed permits and Obama tightens his security. Again it doesn't matter who puts the law in place once its there terrible things may occur, yet stalin restricted guns on many of the nations he occupied like Germany, and Poland

Once again, Hitler LOOSENED exiting Weimar regulations and Stalin DID NOT institute a gun ban. The 1929 Russian gun laws were put in place before Stalin rose to power, not after. And citing lying gun nut propagandists does not an authoritative reference make.

Nazi Germany had gun control on Jews and the soviet union had gun controlk on everyone, doesnt matter who implememnted it, people could not defend and they died, not a hard concept and stop putting words in peoples mouths.

Here is some citations for ya, lot's of them, read up and learn some instead of trying to twist history, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) by John R. Lott. Here is a quote for you to think on "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

Look at the hostility here from these liberals, shut up? Why don't we have the right to express ourselves, you guys have no citations and are obviously twisting the info, funny how intolerant tolerance is eh? I would suggest you people read the Anti-Federalists papers, democracy in America, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, watch any debate with Piers Morgan in it with an open mind, but I encourage you to read what teh founders intended America to be. A republic ruled by the people, but not democratic despotism, they wold be checked by the minorty with guns, the government would be checked by the states, who had the natinal guard, the guard checked by militias, militias checked by more armed citizens, small states equal representation in the Senate with 2 from each state, yet in the House as he state grows more representatives are rewarded. An ingenious system of checks and balances yet they knew that in the end it came down to indivuals willing to fight for their liberty, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without recourse; except in major courage and despair.”1 -James Madison

1.Newton, Michael E., Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers: The Fight for Control of the American Revolution, (2011), p. 105.

Why does he have to put in that persons name? Man you liberals are violent, do you want to harm him? This is crazy every other post you guys make is either violent or hinting violence and the rest are non factual, lies, or distortions, sad really.

I was a little concerned about the lack of citations as well. Since I'm sitting in front of a computer, however, the arduous task of searching for corroboration took 10 seconds.

All the evidence in the world wouldn't pry open the minds of those above searching for citations. Their masters have repeated their lies enough that they've become reality and the narrative is fixed for paranoid gun nuts everywhere.

I have read extensively on the subject and this is twisted, for instance no one says Hitler made all the gun laws be he sure enforced them, and Jews had no guns and that is obviously what people are talking about, and who cares if Germans had handguns as another poster pointed out, try using a handgun in a military enviroment against the government, after deploying I can tell you I want more than just a handgun, I want to lay down some rounds, I want to suppress, close in a destroy my enemy, but guess what that's exactly what the Nazi's did to the Jews, that's waht the Soviets did to the Ukrainians and so on, read up son the evidence is out there, pull your head out.

Wow you and this John are really naive huh? All these massacres are happening in gun free zones, get the hint? No one is going to try to shoot up a police station or a NRA meeting, I wonder why? You need to use your brains and read some literature on the founding of this great nation and stop watching comedy for your news and Matt Damon. Americans are free to own guns because free men own guns, unlike Soviet Russia or Communist China, it is just another thing that sets us apart and there is a reason for it. The founders wanted to restrain themselves from power, can you imagine Obama doing that? I don't think so, not from Mr. executive order, and where is the context and resources in this? Back to the drawing board eh boys hahaha

They were killed by criminals, since when do criminals obey the law? Chances are those guns weren't registered and chances are they were gangsters who commit 75 percent of gun murders in america on other gangsters, the rest for the most part happen in gun free zones. Also it is incorrect to say western europe has lower crime, I am here at the moment and will be for awile longer and vilent crime here is worse, just look into the data. The lowest crime rate is Switzerland so nice try because Swittzerland has actual assault rifles that are easily accesable, not what you think is an asault rifle. So once again lower crime when their is more guns.

Some laws we shouldn't have, correct, but the laws we have people break all the time, like gun laws, murder, illegal immigration and so on. Certain laws make sense but an "assault weapons ban" doesnt since no major shooting was used with an "assault weapon", most shooting are done with handguns, so why not ban handguns? The reason is becasue you want to ban all guns...

The point is is that banning wepons won't help jack wagon, if so give us some evidence. Your post showed us no evidence, in fact it just confirmed that those countries had strict gin control whether they implemented them or not.

Wrong, look at Chicago, Washington D.C., England, Mexico, Los Angeles compared to Idaho, South Dakota, and so on. You are not entitled to your own facts, Mexico ha sthe worst crime in the western hemisphere yet very strict gun laws, same thing with my other examples, stop lying to people.

As I've said numerous times, now, after Chicago banned hand guns the murder rate trended DOWN for twenty-eight years, going down every single year except 2. After the SCoUS overturned the ban in 2010, cheap hand guns were again easy to procure and the murder rate skyrocketed. Ainchoo klever for bringing it up!

The drug gangs responsible for the vast majority of Mexico's violent crime serve the AMERICAN market and use AMERICAN guns, because they're so easy to get.

What kind of half witted imbecile would try to compare crime rates in large urban areas to crime rates in empty rural areas? A gun nut. FYI, more people live in LA than Idaho and South Dakota put together, duh. If you want to compare, compare apples to apples. Or, better yet, before to after.

As I am not an idiot, I won't call you a liar. Rather, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just an ignorant buffoon farting absurd nonsense about that which you obviously know not poop.

Even were your claims not total horse poop, statistically speaking, an exception never disproves the rule, and on average cities, states and nations with stricter gun laws have lower murder rates.

Wrong, those places have less murders per capita, also wrong places with more gun control equal more crime. Also look into the fast and furious Holder was selling cartels weapons and is the biggest proponent for gun control in America, weird huh? Also, Chicago has one of the most violent cities and some of the strictest gun control laws, who cares if it is SLIGHTLY less strict, its still amongst the strictest, so you fail again. England has nearly 11,000 crimes per 100,000 people in the United states the crime rate is nearly 4,000 per 100,000 people, an armed society is a polite society. Also England has 2,034 Violent crimes per 100,000, much higher than the United States and the 2nd worst crime in Europe. Also, how do you explain Switzerland that lets its national guard keep its their weapons? They have the lowest crime rate in Europe Buahahahhaha

"Wrong, those places have less murders per capita, also wrong places with more gun control equal more crime..."

Cheezus Fracking Crisco, why is it these strident nuts can't craft so much one simple sentence in their ostensible native tongue? There are staunch regulation opponents who aren't subliterate boobs. I would hope. But not here, apparently.

Where do you idiots find this absurd, entirely wrong nonsense? No wonder you don't provide cites. Here, try a little REALITY, you know, for a change of pace...

They report Homicides differently in the U.K. I will look it up as it was tricky before but I will expalin soon but as for that other site that was a real laugher as it was not per 100,000, so ya the U.K. is really second on that list LOL

These figures are NOT incidents per 100,000 citizens as some readers have stated despite the fact that the U.S. lists over 11 MILLION incidents which would equate to about every fourth citizen committing a violent crime! When you divide the incidents of violent crime by the population the list changes dramatically. In order of Highest to Lowest crime rate: 1:Columbia, 2:U.K., 3:Iceland, 4:Mexico, 5:Montserrat, 6:Sweden, 7:New Zealand, 8:Finland, 9:Belgium, 10:Denmark, 11:Netherlands, 12:Germany, 13:Canada, 14:Norway, 15:Austria, 16:France, 17:S.Africa.The U.S. is #27, a far cry from the number 1 position implied in this list.Other than to make some sort of an ideological point villifying the United States I can't figure out why a misleading list like this would be published without qualifiers.

No they are not, here is the true rankings per 100,0001:Columbia, 2:U.K., 3:Iceland, 4:Mexico, 5:Montserrat, 6:Sweden, 7:New Zealand, 8:Finland, 9:Belgium, 10:Denmark, 11:Netherlands, 12:Germany, 13:Canada, 14:Norway, 15:Austria, 16:France, 17:S.Africa.The U.S. is #27, a far cry from the number 1 position implied in this list.Other than to make some sort of an ideological point villifying the United States I can't figure out why a misleading list like this would be published without qualifiers.

Those are not correct numbers, just look at the comments below and you will see. I would not belive the U.N. on anything as they are the organization trying to implement guns laws on the ENTIRE WORLD, including America, so no doubt America is number 1. Also we heard of all types of murders by iraqi police at the end of 09 but they never reported what happened to official statsitics so how can you know the info would be actuararate in these types of countries, you cant wise guy. But ya that info is complete nonsense, and the UK has more vilolent crime than the US it comes up in the gun debates all the time and your buddy Piers Morgan gets hammered ever time for putting out false information just like you are doing here, sucks to be wrong all the time huh.

If gun ownership has something to do with the criteria, notice that Israel and Switzerland, where firearms are mandatory, are not on this list

This was not per 100,000 unless we have 12,000,000 incidents per 100,000 lol what a joke. Not only is crime lower but if you take out urban shitholes our crime is the lowest in the world, nice try shithead.

If you need a gun to feel safe in this country, you're pathetic. And as for cops, yes they're better than the rest of us ... in terms of training in the use of firearms and handling crisis situations. Grow up and stop trying to compensate for your "short-comings" with a firearm.

Most police only have to qualify once or twice a year at the range. Most police will never draw their weapon, let alone fire it, during their career. It doesn't take a lot of practice to be better qualified in the handling and use of firearms than the average patrol officer. And, as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Police are NOT "better than the rest of us." They are citizens, like the rest of us. They just happen to be "sworn" (to uphold the law, but they also swear an Oath to the Constitution). And for all the federal government's attempts to "militarize" them, they are civilians, just like the rest of us non-law enforcement personnel. If you don't believe it, do the research.

There are court cases that have ruled the police have no responsibility to protect individual citizens, but only society as a whole. In a free society (or one that claims to be), the police can't take any action against someone who has not broken the law, which means that what usually happens is that the police show up after a crime has been committed to assess the scene, gather evidence, and investigate in order to (hopefully) arrest the suspect(s). The private citizen is primarily responsible for his own safety and security, and it's always been that way (unless you can afford to hire your own security detail). To voluntarily surrender your rights to the government is to voluntarily surrender your freedom and sovereignty over the government to the government. In essence, you are proclaiming yourself to be a slave.

If you wish to do so, that is your right. However, you have NO right to force the rest of us to follow your path.

Here is some basic history for you "gun control"advocates http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_british_sent_troops_to_concord_in_1775 yet I know you think we are all crazy for thinking our rulers will try this again so maybe look into the fact that all these mass shootings happen in Gun Free zones...

Had you the slightest familiarity with basic history, you'd know Lexington and Concord had precisely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the reasons for revolution. The revolution had already started. A state of war already existed. L and C was not the casus belli. It was merely the first military engagement.

Now, put on your thunking cap and try to follow along. In war, often one side seeks to take arms from the other, duh.

The war started at Lexington and Concord jackass, it was in 1775, we didn't sign the Declaration of Independence until 1776, when they came to take our guns that was the first spark, everyone knows that. How do you figure the Revolution was started before hostilities began? Even after Lexington and Concord many in the first continental congress wanted an olive branch sent to King George III.

No one said that the 'reason" for the war of independence had anything to do with guns, but the British new our stockpile of guns at concord and individuals guns were important smart guy, way to put words into people's mouths. However, the war was about an overreaching government which is one of the reasons why (including concord) that the founders put in the second amendment into our Bill of Rights.

Smart people know the first spark was when the colonies circumvented English rule in 1774 and George III declared a state of rebellion and sent thousands of additional troops and more than a hundred war ships. Duh.

And no, dumb guy, they did not come after anyone's individual guns at Lexington and Concord. They came after the militia's stock of powder. Since the Brits had originally formed the militias and supplied them, they had the funny idea the powder was theirs and did not want it used against them. In war one side always seeks to reduce the arms of the other, duh.

Your twisting again Propaganda John, rebellion is not revolution, Shays Rebellion after the revolution wasnt a revolution, our war of independance started when they came to take our ability to defend ourselves, whether it be guns or powder it makes no difference as one relied on the other to be able to fire our 18th century weapons. Also, the Kentucky long rifle was an American gun made by German gun smiths in Pennsylvania and hadn't been given to us by the Brits, also we formed our own militias without help from the British, wrong again. Another grievance was the power given to General Braddock in the French and Indian War as the colonists were angry that they were being stepped over as they had handled their affairs for a long time and Braddock made a huge blunder when he marched west, might wanna read about it...anyway the point the militia played an intrical part of winning that war and it had little to do with British regulars who blundered under Braddock leaving the frontier open to settlers to be slaughtered by thousands of Indians allied with the French. The point is is that American not only self suffeciant with their arms as they were with many other resources, also we were better armed than the brits but whatever I am sure this will go over your head, but keep thinking your a smart guy lol

John, we did not declare independence until July 4th 1776, when do you think concord occurred? You can throw up smoke sscreens if you like but it doesnt make your position more stable, the war broke out at Lexington and Concord when they tried to hamper our ability to defend ourselves, particulary by using our rifles and muskets, lol man you must like getting hammered in these debates eh

Once again, the REBELLION began in 1774, which here in the real world is BEFORE Lexington and Concord. Lexington and Concord had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the case for or beginning of the American Revolution. It was merely where the first shots were fired. A state of war had existed for almost 2 years by that time.

A Rebellion is not a war smart guy, 1775-1783 was when the war of independance lasted crack pot, so your saying the war started when King George sent troops in 1774? No, so when we sent troops to put down Shays rebellion was that the second war of indpendance in the one time colonies? No it wasnt, almost though, just like King George could have made us a commonwealth if he wouldn't have pushed us at lexington and concord by trying to disarm us, man your dumb, this isn't hard guy.

You disputed that, maybe you should reread what you said, you were saying the revolution started in 1774, mope just a small rebellion at that point that no one in England would know much about, until the shot head around the world and we all know what started that now huh lol

Don't try to paraphrase me, quote me. You're not smart enough to understand what I actually said, much less smart enough to attempt interpret what I might have meant, if you stand on your head, close one eye and squint.

It's really very simple, just like the gun nuts firing off volley after volley of nonsense here. The American Revolution began in the years before 1776, and officially hostilities were opened when a state of REBELLION was decreed by George III and thousands of troop sent to occupy American colonies. This happened in 1774, period, EOS, move the bleep on. The first military engagement was at Lexington and Concord, almost TWO YEARS after an official state of war existed between England and the colonies. It was neither a reason for war nor the beginning of the revolution. It was merely the first shooting.

This is not true, war began at Lexington and concord, hell even Wikipedia can attest to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War but I would look into getting Gordon Wood as a reference or maybe Michael Newton or Brion T. McClanahan as these guys focus more on the COnstitution and Bill of Rights all AFTER the war, in fact many consider that the war of independence was not an actual revolution until the constitution and the bill of rights were ratified. But everyone knows that rebellion had happened before in England and elsewhere but it was nothing until Concord when they tried to disable us to defend ourselves, anyone knows this who has studied the American war of Independance. No one has said it was the start of grievences, but war, well yes it was.

Here ya go some history of just when the war started and proof that more was taken than powder http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes also, do you think that since the founders had artillery that our militias can have artillery, that would be good right? Are you for a well armed militia, say with 240s, 81mm mortars, 30 cals, and actual assault rifles?

Well since theres no cites...this blog is irrelevant. Took the time to find some cool pictures, but no time citing and making sure your sources are dependable? Looks like propaganda at its finest. Its obvious you have no better than a high school education and no real ability to find scholarly sources. Do you even know what that means? Just go on Google and look it up, that way you can save face. Until you can prove your claims are correct, stop watering down the internet with haphazardly thrown together blogs that push your mass media opinions perpetuated by your government regulated education to make you an obedient worker and in no way a critical thinker able to investigate and cite information. Ok the rants over, that is all.

If you took so long to post it you should have put in citations wise guy, and anyway everyone else rebutted your propaganda I don't have the time for people who can't understand the concept that every major shooting happened in a gun free zone and that most crime is from inter cities where gun control is enacted, like the district of Colombia.

Well everyone knows that Russia, China, Germany 9and the nations Germany conquered) became disarmed, (and no not all conquerors disarm the populous, look at the American Civil War off the top of my head)and that leads them to be defenseless. The points you make while some are true and others are lies (such as Stalin never passed and harsh gun control) the fact still remains that gun control=genocide, that is when genocide occurs. Refuted and rebuted LOL although so did everyone else LOL

John obviously has no answer as he has avoided my comments and questions on a couple posts yet he takes the time to call you foolish? An obvious sign that he is clueless, but nice rebuttle anyway...hahaha

Not true he made it easy for weapons to be taken as you needed to PROVE you needed them, so "eniemies of the state" ie jews and other freedom loving germans had guns taken without an actual confiscation effort but by banning the sale to jew of arms an ammo that means it is some harsh gun control to be sure, but I am sure youll ignore this.

Actually, he made it more difficult for weapons to be taken, easier to obtain weapons and eliminated many restrictions entirely, including on long guns, ammunition and powder. Guns laws before Hitler were much more strict than the 1938 law.

Wrong, the state had so much control as guns were gegistered with them that the Nazis took guns from any who were considered an enemny of the state and HE TIGHTENED LAWS ON JEWS BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO BUY ARMS OR AMMO.

"Because I say so," is light years away from an authoritative citation or, in this case, reality. Yes, he tightened laws on Jews in ALL areas of life and commerce, AFTER consolidating total control. Which part of AFTER is throwing you?

So did he take their gun rights before or after he killed them lol Which part of AFTER is throwing you? lol And yes the german government at the time, the nazis took peoples guns if thye felt their reason wasnt suffeciant enough in many cases being a jew was case enough to take their firearms, yet many jews didnt own firearms and werent such huge gun enthuisist which is another reason why they were destroyed so easily...

The Gun Control Hall of Fame By Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership? Nice non biased cite you have there. Not. Sorry, but only an idiot would turn to a 100% biased source for unbiased information.

Not to mention, in point of fact there are NO citations of any kind there. But there is a bunch of bullshit. For example, Hitler never said, "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" in 1935 or at any other time. That's a LIE.

Now, either you can rebut or refute any of the facts I've presented or you can't. I know where to put my money...

Well he did say this "History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939 Also, Germany had very strict gun laws, that's a fact and Germany was plunged into tyranny, whatever you have to say about the specifics are just distractions that Germans who opposed Hitler could not stand up to him, especially the Jews.

Um, no. He said that in 1941. Not to mention, he was entirely correct. That's why every conqueror disarms the conquered. You know, just like we do. Just because Hitler was a monster doesn't mean he was stupid. And BTW, Hitler LOOSENED Germany's gun laws in 1938.

This guy is an obvious misleader, what does it matter if Hitler said it in 41? Also no we let Confederates keep their arms after the war, as we let Indians keep their arms many times following Indian wars, just cause you say it happened doesn't mean it's true lol even if you don't think so.

John the policy is to keep an AK in every Iraqi home, I had been all over that country, yet if they stored caches of weapons and RPGs and what not ya we took them, yet Americans can't have RPGs, or assault rifles, so your rebutted and refuted.

In any event, douchebag, the very fact that we did, indeed, confiscate guns proves Iraqis DID NOT have the right to own guns. You see, douchebag, a military occupier arbitrarily allowing some individuals, but not others, to possess guns is, in point of fact, NOT an inherent right to possess guns, duh.

Wrong they were allowed to have guns, not stockpiles, but one gun per household, ask an infantryman on the street that went to Iraq he will know the deal sorry you stayed home lol maybe read some books on the war, but I was there and your the douchbag because you dont know what your talking about and your trying trying to argue with an iraq vet who was in iraq participating in taking large quanities of weapons and at the same time allowing Iraqis to own a weapon per household, sometimes more, like I said i was an e 5 and I am not gonna search for sources of what happened when I was there and i know it was policy for a good 4 years because i was there multiple times joker.

Prove there was such a policy. For that matter where's the proof you were there at all? Heck, provide any evidence of any kind that you're not just an anonymous on the intertubes nut pulling nonsense out of your ass and maybe, just maybe, upright ambulators with opposable thumbs will take notice. Short of that, be gone, troll.

Now, which part of if it was up to us who got to posses guns or not, there obviously were no Iraqi gun rights are you not quite clever enough to ken?

Look, I don't have to point to an article but I am sure they are out their, aanybody who has deployed who searched houses will know this, IRAQIS COULD OWN WEAPONS, specifically AK's, not RPG's though, or at least my platoon never allowed it, you don't understand how things work in the military so it's hard for you to understand. Here is something for ya http://iwpr.net/report-news/shock-iraq-gun-law I was there in 06 and 08 and this is 2011 but like I said I was under orders not to worry about Iraqis with guns, just large stockpiles, perhaps we gave them the idea of the one gun thing IDK, I do know it happened however, just like I know from written history that the Southern confederates were allowed to own firearms after they lost the war, so nice try John.

You know, I was really starting to like the Dems for a while. They seemed to be doing great things with the economy and with their politicians (for the most part). The Republicans were declaring war on women and planned parenthood and a ton of other things. But then ... then the Democrats pop up with their old shit. Feinstein shows up with her OLD liberal gun law legislation that did fuck all to lower anything when it was passed.

The fact of the matter is that the Dems that are the loudest right now are taking advantage of the situation and trying to push their agenda that had been sidelined for the last two decades because it LOST THEM ELECTIONS. Now they're at it for another try. Listen to their arguments, too. They're not arguments against just "assault weapons" (of which the definition doesn't even exist), instead they're arguments against all guns. Then they claim, "Oh no, we just want to ban these MILITARY WEAPONS! Never mind the fact that the so called military weapons are functionally identical to every other semiautomatic long rifle, including a ton that are used for hunting.

Speaking of which, why do people keep bring up hunting? The second amendment doesn't mention hunting anywhere. It doesn't say, "The right to bear arms in order to hunt!" And before you morons start telling me the 2nd Amendment was intended only for a state militia I suggest you do some actual research. While you're doing it look up, "Lexington/Concord" as well as the Supreme Court rulings that go as far back as the early 1800s that clearly show that the amendment lists two distinct parties. One is a well regulated militia and the other is the people. Or did you think the comma in between the two was there for shits and giggles? Also keep in mind that after the Revolution and then after the Bill of Rights people didn't have their guns taken away. They also weren't part of any well regulated militia. Maybe, just MAYBE, it's because the idea that the only people allowed to have guns must belong to a militia is completely FALSE and always has been, even as far back as the beginning of the freaking country.

God this shit pisses me off. The Dems are just as bad as the Republicans. The use the same stupid sleezy tactics to get their goal across, the Constitution be damned.

Tell you what, if you want to ban guns from the nation then do it the way it's supposed to be done. Try and repeal the 2nd Amendment. There's a process for trying for specifically that reason. Why don't the Dems try that? Because they know they don't have a snowballs chance in hell of EVER being able to do that. So instead they do what Republicans do on abortion issues and try to trim the edges to the point that there is some kind of a de facto ban on guns. Then they turn around and bitch about Republicans who do the same thing in states that effectively ban abortions.

Try not to be so fucking transparently hypocritical, politicians. You're completely fake.

Oh, and as a person who has voted Democrat for the last few elections, let me tell anyone who cares that I will no longer be voting for a Democrat in the 2014 election. I'm in CA so I'm not voting for one god damn Dem, which is important because my district is a swing district in CA (which there aren't many of). Why? Because the President is there to stop the Republican crazies so I'll have to add a counter weight to the Democratic crazies by sending in a Republican. It's down right disgusting that I have to plan my vote in a way that will stop this kind of crap, but if it's what I have to do then it's what I will do.

Well obviously this is propaganda as their is no endnotes or bibliography whatsoever, but a good book for you guys to read would be Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament byAaron S. Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. It deals with gun control be necessary for genocide in Cambodia, China, Germany, Rwanda, Turkey, Uganda, The Soviet Union, and Zimbabwe, I have browsed through it and it seems to be very good so I will purchase it good as I believe in facts, reason and logic to back up my beliefs. Yet I have read Aaron Zelmans other book titled, Gun Control -: Gateway to Tyranny: The Nazi Weapons Law 18 March 1938, it was very good as it explained how Hitler took away gun rights totally from Jews and had regular Germans restricted to handguns, try using handguns to fend of MG42s, the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle(an actual assault rifle not the supposed assault rifles that the media is branding AR 15s, those are semi automatic rifles sorry guys) or even the standard Mauser, so freedom loving Germans didn't stand up to the Nazis and Jews couldn't either. It doesn't matter if the German government before the rise of the Nazi's were stricter on guns as perhaps if they had laws similar to the U.S. their would have been no massive genocide or tyranny in Germany once the Nazis came to power, and they could have been stopped by the armed population. No one is saying the they Weimar republic wasn't safe, or that it produced a genocide, people are agruing that Nazi Germany had strict gun laws, and it did, and that they committed genocide on their own people, specifically Jews and Gypsies, although many others were killed also, this is an obvious spin and anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject can see that. In Soviet Russia also guns were hard to come by and although Stalin didn't introduce gun control personally he sure did strict to it as millions of people perished within the Soviet Union such as 15 million Ukrainians that were starved to death and other who were again unable to defend themselves, but hey if you don't believe me then read those books and you'll see where this post is pure propaganda and twisting of the facts.Heck even the shot head around the world at Concord happened when the British were poised on collecting our guns in 1775, the very War of American Independence was started when they came to seize our guns, so with these FACTS you can see how some Americans see the necessity of the second amendment.

Er, wow. Really? I take it you weren't the valedictorian at your school. It's too late to learn grammar, obviously, but do look "paragraph" and "punctuation." Nobody wants to wade through a big block of subliterate boob.babble.

Lol, for a guy who throws out more red herrings than anyone can dream of with no citations that's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black eh? Sorry you can't refute this guys facts cause your too indoctrinated...But even if gun control wouldn't have stopped genocide at least people can die with some honor instead of being starved to death or gassed.

John can't stand someone stating facts head on, he likes to twist things for his own agenda. Blood of the Sandy Hook kids on our people like John's hands as they make our kids defenseless to murdering physcos, instead of leaving a policeman or a veteran guarding our kids from evil they want to act like freedom is evil, not people, guns, not individuals. Their blood is on your hands John.

There isn't blood on his hands, yet that is exactly what his cronies would say about the NRA, nut don't stoop to their level. The problem is is disinformation so in that sense people like John who spread propaganda are partly to blame yes, but I don't know if I'd take it that far...

I am, in fact a gun owner, and like the majority of responsible gun owners, I favor common sense regulation. For example, close the gun show loophole, regulate private sales, for a start. I'd also favor requiring testing and insurance. There are many ways to regulate guns without banning or confiscating guns.

I may agree with some of those,but I'd have to see what they are saying about it, they may try and sneak some BS in there...What is your view on semi automatic AR's an so on, I mean the media is calling them "assault weapons" but of course that is a load of bull, so what's your answer to that?

Wrong, you can't shoot hundreads of rounds a minute with a semi automatic AR 15 or any other rifle, that;s how I know you aren't a gun owner, maybe a BB gun lol. They are not automatic that is what seperates them from military grade weapons and the founders were clear that the 2nd ammendment was a safeguard against tyranny, so how can you do that if they have better shit? We had better weapons than the British, at least small arms, so therfeore we should have equal if not better weapons than the army, so again you fail to read what the 2nd ammendment means.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

WTF, look dude Sandy Hook, columbine, and every massacre was done with a SEMI AUTOMATIC not automatics, it is very hard to get a AUTOMATIC and there is virtually no crime done with them, I believe 2 in the last 40 years lol stop twisting.

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." — Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"A government resting on a minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." James Madison

"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. Wear a gun to someone else's house, you're saying, 'I'll defend this home as if it were my own.' When your guests see you carry a weapon, you're telling them, 'I'll defend you as if you were my own family.' And anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible: 'I don't trust you unless you're rendered harmless'!" - L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach

."..and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." — Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 NKJV

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." — Voltaire

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." — Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State." — Heinrich Himmler

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." — Mao Zedong, Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938 (published in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 1965) Enough said, use citations and take a hint from history, all natons that havegun ontrol may not have genocide but all genocides happen where gun control is in place whether those certain dictators make those the law of the land or not.

Give us one quote by the founders that limits someone's ability to protect themselves? Give us one state that has guns laws similar to the United States and has had a genocide? Your facts are skewed and twisted, yes Germany's gun control was not just Hitlers doing but that doesn't matter as Jews weren't allowed to have guns and we know what happened to them, you throw out useless and twisted information that avoids the issue, did they or did they not have gun control in Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and other places where genocide occurred, yes very strict and guess what happened, genocide!

You are interpretting it wrong here is some quotes you can dwell on smart guy

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

Whoever, wrote this should be ashamed of themselves for misguiding so many with obvious distortions. Ever country mentioned had genocides and strict gun laws, yet those leaders may not have implemented them, that does not mean they weren't strict gun laws. I don't understand how so many people can be so easily duped...

Why can't you answer him John? Lol there have been plenty of people here refuting your "facts" lol, just answer his question, but we know you wont cause you know the genocidal capitals of history are gun control nations.

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

Also, you have no idea how much self defense is used with a gun as people have no need to report that "hey this guy said he was gonna kill me but I flashed my gun and he ran off", lol nice try though.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]

"As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm."

IOW, no change.

"The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."

A significant LOOSENING of the Weimar restrictions...

"The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions."

Another significant LOOSENING of the Weimar restrictions...

"The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18"

Another significant LOOSENING of the Weimar restrictions...

"The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year."

Another significant LOOSENING of the Weimar restrictions...

"Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers."

IOW, no change.

Thanks ever so much for so irrefutably proving MY point, and with an authoritative citation. Hitler most certainly did, by any possible interpretation, LOOSEN restrictions on guns in Germany.

He tightened them on Jews, and that is already pretty tigt laws for Germans, so again it doesn't matter who tightened them gun control was in place, ESPECIALLY ON PEOPLE HE MEANT TO DESTROY so whos to say that the german people weren't next? That is why we need the second ammendment stop avoiding the issue I have wrote and agreed that Hitler loosened gun laws on his friends but so what, anyone against the Nazi Party couldn't own a gun as they would be taken away without a suffeciant reason, sounds a lot like how democrats wanna take guns to day cause "you don't need AR 15s" even though they are just semi autos lol good one wise guy

The russian army on the war because they had guns, thanks for making my point for me lol Sorry life isnt perfect all we can do is go on and try to protect ourselves from murders and tyrannical governments and make the best of it. This eutopia that you think exists obviously doesn't, if so where is it? The Uk and Australia has more gun crime after they banned gun and more violent crime than America, all massacres happen in gun free zones, so how do you rationalize that?

Free gun zone sign you mean, ya how about it John, if someone told you your daughter was in the same building as a rapist would you rather that she was armed with a phone to call the police or her be armed? Mind you the police is far away and will take 20 minutes for them to get there....the police show up at crime scenes, they don't stop crimes.

If someone told your your brains were in your ass, would you fart? Burn down your own stupid straw man. The least likely use for a gun is self defense, behind homicide, suicide and accidental discharge. This is what's called a FACT.

And Hitler did not take guns from Jews in 1938. That's simply not true. The weapons act merely prohibited Jews from manufacturing guns or trading in guns, as they were prohibited from pretty much all trade by that time. You see, severe anti-Jewish laws began in 1933, five years before the weapons act. To say an event 5 years after the fact allowed Hitler to clamp don on Jews is a temporal impossibility, not to mention stupid. Unless you think Hitler had a time machine. It's irrelevant in any event, as by 1938 the Nazis had complete and total control of all aspects of German life.

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4] The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5] The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5] The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5] Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

Also, you have no idea how much self defense is used with a gun as people have no need to report that "hey this guy said he was gonna kill me but I flashed my gun and he ran off", lol nice try though.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]

Of course no one is gonna report an act of self defense unless that person is killed jackass, that doesn't mean that guns don't deter crime or that your statistical "fact" is even close to the truth as we will never truly know.

What an idiot this John clown is, they simply took Jews guns as they were not "trust worthy" enough, similar things have been hinted at by the Obama administration and the mainstream media. Also,, why has the nations crime rate went down in the last 40 years if guns sales have incrreased? Huh...

Gee, I missed the part where the government took away their guns. The SA took guns. They also took homes, personal possessions, businesses, wives and daughters. I kinda doubt the guns were the most important issue. Of course, I'm not a gun nut. I'm a responsible gun owner.

Only stupid people think correlation is causation. The nation's violent crime rate has gone down due to a number of factors, the most important being the reduction of lead in the environment. Perhaps it's the exposure to lead that causes gun nuts to devolve into subliterate boobs.

Give us one instance where genocide has taken place and their wasn't gun contrl inforced in the 20th century? Ah, the silence is deafening eh? That's the point that most are making here. Most have made good points yet you fail to answer them, but answer mine, give us one instance of where genocide has happened and gun control was not introduced before hand and it doesnt have to be by those that enforced the genocide as that doesn't matter all that matters is that genocide happened under countries that had gun control in place.

HAHAHAHAHHA Rwanda was a big time gun control incident, stop reading snopes they have been known to be factually inncorrect http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/12086-un-arms-transfer-treaty-att-on-small-arms-gun-grab-gradualism

HA HA HA HA HA HA, whew! How stupid must one be before one believes that where there is no functional government of any kind, that there is strict gun regulation? Is fork in the face stupid sufficient or must one be rock hard, super dense, singularity-type stupid? Without your help those of us who ambulate upright and possess opposable thumbs will never know.

Most of the killing was done with machetes, clubs, or knives a perfect example of how helpless people were left helpless, thanks for makig my point. Since the government had the names and addresses of nearly all Tutsis living in Rwanda (remember, each Rwandan had an identity card that labeled them Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa) the killers could go door to door, slaughtering the Tutsis.

Men, women, and children were murdered. Since bullets were expensive, most Tutsis were killed by hand weapons, often machetes or clubs. Many were often tortured before being killed. Some of the victims were given the option of paying for a bullet so that they'd have a quicker death.

Also during the violence, thousands of Tutsi women were raped. Some were raped and then killed, others were kept as sex slaves for weeks. Some Tutsi women and girls were also tortured before being killed, such as having their breasts cut off or had sharp objects shoved up their vagina.

Try reading for comprehension. As I pointed out in the post, Jews in Warsaw had guns. Jews in Kracow had guns. Jews in Prague had guns. In fact, the vast majority of the 6 million Jews exterminated by the Nazis were never banned from having guns. The "if only the less than 200,000 Jews in Germany had guns" argument is specious and absurd, as the facts so clearly prove.

Hitler tightened gun laws for Jews yet he may have loosened them for his supporters, but still handguns are no match from machine guns, mortars, tanks, semi autos and so on. Jews were stripped with guns in Warsaw, your wrong, if they had guns it was illegal. The sam goes for Prauge, and Kracow. If guns werent so important then why would Hitler take gun ownership from Jews with his 1938 German's weapon Act? Your spinning the facts and you know it. If guns weren't important then why did the British come to take our guns at Concord in 1775? Also, you point out how guns weren't banned in Revolutionary Russia, well duh, that's why Revolutionary Russia was able to overthrow the government, thanks for making my point. Even Jews who were police were not allowed to carry firearms in Warsaw and other Ghetto's!You have to be kidding us, here look for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Ghetto_Police and if you still are confused then buy this book and study up http://www.amazon.com/Death-Gun-Control-Victim-Disarmament/dp/0964230461/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t as it touches on just how Jews were denied gun rights not only in Germany but everywhere the Nazi's invaded just as this quote shows, "History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939 There seems to be some pretty knowledgeable people commenting on this site I would open your mind to them, stop being afraid of a tool especially one that helped give you your freedom.

First off, the DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN). Second, look at what the founders said “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without recourse; except in major courage and despair.” -James Madison

Thomas Jefferson - "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty."

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

Dude, are you seriously so dense you don't understand the difference between before and after? What a bunch of gobbledygook.

BEFORE Nazis invaded Poland Jews in Warsaw could legally own guns. AFTER the invasion NOBODY was allowed to own guns.

The 1938 weapons act didn't take guns from Jews. It prohibited Jews from manufacturing or trading in guns, just like Jews were prohibited from almost all trade.

The Brits did not come for our guns. They came for powder. The revolution had already started. Lexington and Concord was just the first military engagement, not the reason for revolution. Try to follow along... In war one side often seeks to take weaponry from the other. Duh.

There were no strict restrictions on guns during Russian revolutionary times. Gun restrictions in Russia started in 1929. That's AFTER the revolution not BEFORE. LONG after. Duh.

Finally, every conqueror disarms every conquered foe. You know, just like we do. Duh. Once again that happened AFTER conquest not BEFORE.

Leave it an ignorant gun nut to get the facts wrong and be too stupid to know causes come BEFORE, effects come AFTER. Duh.

No one said concord was the reason for the revolution, just the tipping point. Of course nations can be defeated by owning guns, they call them lost wars, however, that doesn't change the fact that Poles and Jews were massacred by the Soviet and Nazis who TOOK THEIR GUNS AWAY SO THEY CAN KILL THEM. Which you obviously agreed with. Also, like I said after the Revolution they took guns, no one disputed that, yet once again you make my point because they would not have won the revolution if they wouldn't have had access to guns. Alo, I was in Iraq and Afghanistan and we did allow ever house to own a gun (actual assault rifles) so your are infactual there and obviously can't comprehend that this whole blog is a red herring.

What a dummy, the point is is that after gun restrictions in Russia there has never been adequate force used against the government in stages where force is necessary, such as rule under Stalin to this very day. The people are oppressed and enslaved by the state who have a monopoly on guns, pretty simple really.

Really? A picture, what a clown, we would get stockpiles becaus they were obviously being used by insurgents, but we would see guys walking with an AK and that was cool as long as he didn't shoot at us because Iraq is dangerous and that dude might wanna protect himself, you need to pull your head out of your ass, and oh BTW none of buddies would obey an order to collect arms from the American people.

If you think your say so carries any weight, you are even more of an idiot than you play on the intertubes. If you think what you think your buddies would or would not do carries any weight, you're not quite up to idiot standards.

That every gun was not taken from every individual, I don't doubt. However, that was the choice of the occupiers, not the individuals, which, had you the brains of a boiled cabbage, you'd realize blows your puerile argument out of the water. Obviously Iraqis under US occupation did not have gun rights, as the occupiers made the decisions as to who was allowed to keep a gun or not, duh.

Look jackass, what I was saying was if Obama issued an exectutive order to confiscate firearms no one in my old unit would have followed, who said anything about me holding any weight? I was an E-5 grunt an lead a squad of dudes never said I was advising the president or something lol

I never said that wasn't the coice of the occupiers stupid but you said that Hitler was right by saying all conquerors confiscate weapons, obviously not as WE DID NT IN IRAQ so who's the idiot now eh Lol

Look, jackass, if such an order were issued, it wouldn't be enforced by the military, duh. Look up the phrase "posse comitatus," jackass, then give your ignorant ass 40 whacks with a stout clue-by-four.

Obviously, jackass, as I have shown, we did, in fact, CONFISCATE WEAPONS IN IRAQ, duh. Obviously, jackass, that proves there was no inherent right to own a gun under our occupation, duh.

BTW, jackass, nobody, as in not a anybody, is suggesting anything even remotely similar to confiscating weapons. That's a paranoid nut fantasy. You know those voices in your head? You're listening to the wrong ones.

Wrong Feinstein had said she would take all guns if she could, so it has been talked about. Also, I never said we didnt confiscate guns, but like I said they were allowed one AK a household at times more, to PROTECT THEMSELVES if you don't belive me ask another Iraq vet, particulary an infantryman like me who went from house to house, don't tell me what happened and don't call me a jackass for knowing what happend.

Here is a fact. 2nd amendment gives US citizens the right to bear arms. If you don't like it then the world has plenty of other options for you. Mexico is warm and firearms are outlawed their. Only drug cartels and outlaws have them. Perfect place for you.

Comment Policy: Anyone can comment. Registration is not required. There is no moderation. We do not censor or remove comments. Your comment should show up immediately.

The only exception is we will remove any comment that identifies, targets, threatens or in any way harasses any private individual.

Comments that include excessive vulgarity, racial slurs, death wishes and WILD ALL CAPS RANTS may be featured.

In recognition of the fact that this is very probably an entirely unworkable policy so vague as to be completely meaningless and therefore ultimately unenforceable, we reserve the right to do whatever the bleep we might bleepity-bleep well feel like doing at any bleeping given time. Please adjust your clocks accordingly.

BTW, "we" is me. If you don't like it, feel free to complain. Make sure you include excessive vulgarity, racial slurs, death wishes and WILD ALL CAPS RANTS.